The Drive toward Unity at the Expense of the Individual and Individual Communities

Imagine a world with one government. The focus of the government is making sure everyone is part of “one unified happy family.” The state controls all aspects of life. “Diversity” is celebrated in word, but ignored or pushed aside in practice. The government ignores individual differences between people, whether it be athletic ability or behavioral differences–absolute equality is preserved. Most people in this state believe that, after death, they will merge into oneness with the universe and lose whatever individuality that remains. Does this sound like a utopian world to you?

The European Union, which attempts in its own way to re-establish the unity of Europe before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, is supported by seemingly disparate groups: some (though not all) Marxists, Social Democrats, Corporatists and other big government, Bismark-style conservatives. The UK, which has not totally lost its historic independent streak, tends to oppose the Union. At least those who argue for the EU use their minds; the same cannot be said for the cotton-candy brained New Agers who believe in some utopian unity in 2012 (in 1969 it was the “Age of Aquarius”). New Agers, who “feel” without putting their emotions under the discipline of reason, tend toward a vague form of ontological monism and pantheism that totally subsumes the individual. Sometimes the more “thoughtful” New Agers may use (still questionable) arguments from quantum entanglement or the Higgs Field to support their position.

Human beings are social animals, and naturally work together best in smaller social groups. The family is the basic unit of human social interaction, followed by friends, acquaintances, and strangers. It is true that Jesus Christ affirms that all people are our neighbors–that is, we are all human persons made in God’s image, thus not considering a person a neighbor because of his ethnicity is wrong. In His time, the conflict was between the Jewish people and the Samaritans The “Good Samaritan” overcomes the prejudice of the Samaritans against Jews and helps a person in need.

Jesus’ parable should not be used to argue against a hierarchy of communities beginning with the family, where we first learn to love people in spite of differences and learn to deal with fellow human beings, sometimes with much conflict. A person’s first obligation, apart from religious obligations, is to his family, and then to the other groups mentioned above. An emphasis on “we’re all really one” to the detriment of individuals and individual families ignores human nature and will only lead to a socially engineered, artificial society that, in the end, must be unified by the force of government power or by the pernicious influence of large corporations on the general culture. Individual identity is subsumed under a monster state (in socialism) or under the influence of corporations through the media (in corporatism, which, as I always emphasize, is not the same thing as capitalism).

Religion that ignores individual human beings is also pernicious. It is true that human beings, as all substances, are, as Father W. Norris Clarke put it, “substances-in-relation.” That includes relation to one another, to nature in general, and to God. But such relationality does not take away from the fact that each human being is also an individual substance with a personal unity whose value comes from God, the Creator. I have heard rebellious Christians claim that desire for individual resurrection is selfish. It can be, I suppose, but understanding human beings in relation to God and each other surely includes a natural desire to be united to God and to loved ones (and later, to others) in a resurrection world. Unity with God or with each other neither subsumes individuals nor subsume individual communities, though many human relationships will be transcended and become something deeper and far more valuable than relationships on earth. Even the Christian mystics, who in the height of their experience often used language suggesting an ontological monism, in the end recognized that they are created beings, individuals, though they are wholly dependent on God for their continued existence.

Recognizing individual families and small groups, as well as acknowledging the individuality of human persons, implies a less intrusive state as well as smaller businesses oriented to the good of their individual communities. Of course there should be a respect for other people, even those who are strangers, but fundamentally no government or corporation should interfere with the hierarchy of love that is natural to human beings and which forms organic, not forced, communities.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

If I were an ET/alien from another solar system that had successfully developed much high technology. was part of an advanced civilization that had managed not to destroy itself, but had failed to develop much morally . . . then coming upon the earth I might view it as a resource and wonder how I might contrive to turn it to my purposes. Certainly the one world government described above would seem a likely way to go. I would not be interested in individuals but only in what large group efforts might produce for my purposes. Maybe I would need certain minerals, humans to experiment on, food, water, the production of certain metals , , ,
I am certainly open to the idea of aliens though I have not had any experiences in that direction. I can appreciate that some might be morally superior to us while others might be about the same. Perhaps billionaires believe they are ET’s due to their remarkable material success. There must be many books written in the past that laud the idea of a world government. When it comes to government though I think that probably like with other things “small is beautiful”.
Reading monistic literature with an immature mind does lead to some humorous conclusions. Buddhism might be seen as monistic but certainly has very high ethical standards and certainly would not favor impersonal and large governments taking over. Mystical experiences of oneness if genuine do not lead to crazy behavior. With drugs a lot of people have had experiences which in themselves may be genuine but with minds totally unable to properly comprehend what has occurred. Whereas in the past unitive experiences and the like were the province usually of men and women who had spent a good deal of time in spiritual disciplines, with the advent of casual drug use we started getting people reporting such experiences and then relating them in a kind of slang way to the rest of their lives . . . like comedy. Though sometimes like tragedy.
World government in my opinion is a very bad idea. I even favor more states’ rights as the original idea of a federal rather than national government indicated. If Mississippi wants to ban contraception then the people there can have their way and be happy. If Oregon wants assisted suicide then they can have that. The federal government has clearly gotten too powerful. My health should be my private affair. I even agree with Ron Paul that if someone wants to use heroin then that is their choice. We have enough crimes on the books.
Frankly the loss of common sense is the most immediate and obvious problem. Grade school children arrested; old grandmas groped by perverts at airports; today a child with cerebral palsy told she can not use her walker anymore at school because she fell once. Where do these people come from who lack judgement,
Finally here is what I find insane, Because Iran might decide to build a nuclear bomb, and then might actually build one, and finally might use it we are justified in harming that nation!!? Well using that logic I came up with this: Barack Obama might have a congenital brain weakness which has not yet manifested; this possible brain abnormality might begin to manifest now; manifesting it might cause him to do some terrible things. Therefore, I believe he should be immediately removed from office! It is exactly the same thing– a string of “mights”. And really what might he do if what I have posited were the case? Launch thousands of nuclear missiles. A far worse prospect than Iran having a couple at most at some perhaps distant time. In the meantime Israel has several hundred and at any moment Netanyahu might suffer some mental breakdown and launch these at Europe. Instead of the “power of now” we have the “power of might or may be or possibly”.

That’s a great point about the fallacy of basing U. S. policy on what another country “might do.” As you point out, that justifies attacking any country in the world on the whim of U. S. politicians. The lack of prudence among politicians of both parties is astounding.